Here's my current thoughts on multiple tabs (mostly initialization time definition of tabs):
We have the ability to look up logging event fields by keyword, using the LoggingEventFieldResolver class. This allows us to define expressions that can be resolved when an event shows up, which can be used to route events to panels. For example, for the way Chainsaw currently works, the only expression it's supporting is: PROP.log4jmachinename-PROP.log4japp I was thinking this would be the default, but in the preferences panel, it could be overridden with an expression of the user's choice. My example use case was a NOC that wanted all ERROR events from any app to show up on a single panel, they would use the expression: LEVEL So if you want to have a separate tab for each user in a web app, you could use this expression (assuming MDC.userID is the user's ID): PROP.log4japp-MDC.userid I was thinking we may need to surround keyword expressions in single quotes, otherwise it's hard to distinguish keywords that have sub-parts, like PROP and MDC. Paul mentioned he's interested in the ability of deriving views of an existing LogPanel, which is a great idea, and can use the same mechanism. Paul, care to elaborate on what you're thinking? -----Original Message----- From: Scott Deboy Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:12 PM To: Log4J Developers List Subject: [chainsaw] RE: chainsaw with multiple tabs... ok -----Original Message----- From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:09 PM To: Log4J Developers List Subject: RE: chainsaw with multiple tabs... Ok, I think we should prefix the subject line for Chainsaw related discussions with '[Chainsaw]' so people can filter out with their mail client as required. Scott, you happy with this? Paul On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 09:06, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > At 08:53 AM 12/11/2003 +1100, Paul Smith wrote: > >Scott and I have been discussing this offline over the last couple of > >days. Perhaps we should forward our email thread. > > > >this begs the question about whether Scott and I should keep our > >discussions online on the list, my only concern is that we are doing > >a decent amount of discussion, and I'm afraid we might drown out > >other threads on this list. > > As a general rule, one should never worry about drowning other > discussions > assuming the discussion is log4j related of course. That's the official > party line, the party being the ASF. The party line is known to be > misguided on occasion, so do as your heart pleases. > > >What do people think? I would love everyone to participate in the > >discussions, but I also don't want to saturate people either. > > See the party line. > > >Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
